THE

VAGRAKKHEDIKÂ

OR

DIAMOND-CUTTER.

Translated by E.B. Cowell, F. Max Mulller, and J. Takakusu

ADORATION to the blessed Ârya-pragñâ-pâramitâ (perfection of
wisdom).

I.

Thus it was heard by me: At one time Bhagavat (the blessed Buddha) dwelt
in Srâvastî, in the grove of Geta[1], in the garden of Anâthapindada[2],
together with a large company of Bhikshus (mendicants), viz. with 1250
Bhikshus[3], with many noble-minded Bodhisattvas[4].

[1. Geta, son of king Prasenagit, to whom the park
belonged before it was sold to Anâthapindada.

2. Another name of Sudatta, meaning, literally, he who gives food to the
poor.

3. The number of 1250 is explained by a Chinese priest Lun-hin, in his
commentary on the Amitâyur-dhyâna-sûtra. According to the Dharmagupta-vinaya,
which he quotes, the number consisted of 500 disciples of Uruvilva-kâsyapa,
300 of Gayâ-kâsyapa, 200 of Nadî-kâsyapa, 150 of Sâriputra,
and 100 of Maudgalyâyana. The Chinese translators often mistook the Sanskrit
expression 'half-thirteen hundred,' i.e. 1250. See Bunyiu Nanjio, Catalogue of
Tripitaka, p. 6.

4. Higher beings on the road to Bodhi or perfect knowledge. They are destined
hereafter to become Buddhas themselves.]

Then Bhagavat having in the forenoon put on his undergarment[1], and
having taken his bowl and cloak, entered the great city of Srâvastî to
collect alms. Then Bhagavat, after he had gone to the great city of Srâvastî
to collect alms, performed the act of eating[2], and having returned from his
round in the afternoon[3], he put away his bowl and cloak, washed his feet, and
sat down on the seat intended[4] for him, crossing his legs[5], holding his body
upright, and turning his reflection upon himself. Then many Bhikshus approached
to where Bhagavat was, saluted his feet with their heads, turned three times
round hira to the right, and sat down on one side. (1)

II.

At that time again the venerable Subhûti came to that assembly and sat
down. Then rising from his seat and putting his robe over one shoulder, kneeling
on the earth with his right knee, he stretched out his folded hands towards
Bhagavat and said to him: 'It is wonderful, O Bhagavat, it is exceedingly
wonderful, O Sugata, how much the noble-minded Bodhisattvas have been favoured
with the highest favour by the Tathâgata, the holy and

[1. In Pâli pubbamhasmayam nivâsetva, the technical
expression for putting on the robes early in the morning; see Childers, s.v.
nivâseti.

2. In Pâli katabhattakikko, see Childers, s.v.

3. In Pâli pakkhâbhattam pindapâtapatikkânta, see
Childers, s.v. pindapâta. Vig. observes that pakkhabhattam
pindapâtapatikkânto is a {Greek ¨²!oteron pr¨®teron}, as it
means, having returned from his rounds, and then made his meal on the food
obtained on his rounds.

fully enlightened! It is wonderful how much the noble-minded Bodhisattvas
have been instructed[1] with the highest instruction by the Tathâgata, the holy
and fully enlightened! How then, O Bhagavat, should the son or the daughter of a
good family, after having entered on the path of the Bodhisattvas, behave, how
should he advance, and how should he restrain his thoughts?'

After the venerable Subhûti had thus spoken, Bhagavat said to him: 'Well
said, well said, Subhûti! So it is, Subhûti, so it is, as you say. The
noble-minded Bodhisattvas have been favoured with the highest favour by the
Tathâgata, the noble-minded Bodhisattvas have been instructed with the highest
instruction by the Tathâgata. Therefore, O Subhûti, listen and take it to heart,
well and rightly. I shall tell you, how any one who has entered on the path of
Bodhisanvas should behave, how he should advance, and how he should restrain his
thoughts.' Then the venerable Subhûti answered the Bhagavat and said: 'So be it,
O Bhagavat.' (2)

III.

Then the Bhagavat thus spoke to him: 'Any one, O Subhûti, who has entered
here on the path of the Bodhisattvas must thus frame his thought: As many beings
as there are in this world of beings, comprehended under the term of beings
(either born of eggs, or from the womb, or from moisture, or miraculously), with
form or without form, with name or without name, or neither with nor without
name, as far as

[1. I have followed the Chinese translator, who translates parîndita
by instructed, entrusted, not by protected.]

any known world of beings is known, all these must be delivered by me in the
perfect world of Nirvâna. And yet, after I have thus delivered
immeasurable beings, not one single being has been delivered. And why? If, O
Subhûti, a Bodhisattva had any idea of (belief in) a being, he could not be
called a Bodhisattva (one who is fit to become a Buddha). And why? Because, O
Subhûti, no one is to be called a Bodhisattva, for whom there should exist the
idea of a being, the idea of a living being, or the idea of a person.' (3)

IV.

'And again, O Subhûti, a gift should not be given by a Bodhisattva, while
he believes[1] in objects; a gift should not be given by him, while he believes
in anything; a gift should not be given by him, while he believes in form; a
gift should not be given by him, while he believes in the special qualities of
sound, smell, taste, and touch. For thus, O Subhûti, should a gift be given by a
noble-minded Bodhisattva, that he should not believe even in the idea of cause.
And why? Because that Bodhisattva, O Subhûti, who gives a gift, without
believing in anything, the measure of his stock of merit is not easy to
learn.'--'What do you think, O Subhûti, is it easy to learn the measure of space
in the eastern quarter?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat.'--Bhagavat said:
'In like manner, is it easy to learn the measure of space in the southern,
western, northern quarters, below and above (nadir and zenith), in quarters and
subquarters, in the ten quarters all round?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed,

O Bhagavat.' Bhagavat said: 'In the same manner, O Subhûti, the measure of
the stock of merit of a Bodhisattva, who gives a gift without believing in
anything, is not easy to learn. And thus indeed, O Subhûti, should one who has
entered on the path of Bodhisattvas give a gift, that he should not believe even
in the idea of cause.' (4)

V.

'Now, what do you think, O Subhûti, should a Tathâgata be seen (known) by
the possession of signs[1]?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a Tathâgata
is not to be seen (known) by the possession of signs. And why? Because what has
been preached by the Tathâgata as the possession of signs, that is indeed the
possession of no-signs.'

After this, Bhagavat spoke thus to the venerable Subhûti: 'Wherever there
is, O Subhûti, the possession of signs, there is falsehood; wherever there is no
possession of signs, there is no falsehood. Hence the Tathâgata is to be seen
(known) from no-signs as signs[2].' (5)

VI.

After this, the venerable Subhûti spoke thus to the Bhagavat: 'Forsooth, O
Bhagavat, will there be any beings in the future, in the last time, in the last
moment, in the last 500 years[3], during the time

[1. Qualities by which he could be known.

2. It would be easier to read lakshanâlakshanatvatah,
from the signs having the character of no-signs. M. de Harlez translates
rightly, 'c'est par le non-marque de marquer que la Tathâgata doit ¨ºtre vu et
reconnu.'

3. I have changed Pañkâsatî into Pañkasatî,
because what is intended here is evidently the last of the periods of 500 years
each, which, according to the Mahâyâna-Buddhists, elapsed after the death of
Buddha. The following extract from the Mahâsannipâta-sûtra (Ta-tsi-king, No. 61
in Tripitaka), given to me by Mr. B. Nanjio, fully explains the subject.
'It is stated in the fifty-first section of the Mahâsannipâta-sûtra, that Buddha
said: "After my Nirvâna, in the first 500 years, all the Bhikshus and
others will be strong in deliberation in my correct Law. (Those who first obtain
the 'holy fruit,' i.e. the Srota-âpannas, are called those who have obtained
deliberation.) In the next or second 500 years, they will be strong in
meditation. In the next or third 500 years, they will be strong in 'much
learning,' i.e. bahusruta, religious knowledge. In the next or fourth 500
years, they will be strong in founding monasteries, &c. In the last or fifth 500
years, they will be strong in fighting and reproving. The pure (lit. white) Law
will then become invisible."'

The question therefore amounts to this, whether in that corrupt age the law
of Buddha will be understood? and the answer is, that there will be always some
excellent Boddhisatvas who, even in the age of corruption, can understand the
preaching of the Law.]

of the decay of the good Law, who, when these very words of the Sûtras are
being preached, will frame a true idea[1]?' The Bhagavat said: 'Do not speak
thus, Subhûti. Yes, there will be some beings in the future, in the last time,
in the last moment, in the last 500 years, during the decay of the good Law, who
will frame a true idea when these very words are being preached.

'And again, O Subhûti, there will be noble-minded Bodhisattvas, in the
future, in the last time, in the last moment, in the last 500 years, during the
decay of the good Law, there will be strong and good and wise beings, who, when
these very words of the Sûtras are being preached, will frame a true idea. But
those noble-minded Bodhisattvas, O Subhûti, will not have served one Buddha
only, and the stock

of their merit will not have been accumulated under one Buddha only; on the
contrary, O Subhûti, those noble-minded Bodhisattvas will have served many
hundred thousands of Buddhas, and the stock of their merit will have been
accumulated under many hundred thousands of Buddhas; and they, when these very
words of the Sûtras are being preached, will obtain one and the same faith[1].
They are known, O Subhûti, by the Tathâgata through his Buddha-knowledge; they
are seen, O Subhûti, by the Tathâgata through his Buddha-eye; they are
understood, O Subhûti, by the Tathâgata. All these, O Subhûti, will produce and
will hold fast an immeasurable and innumerable stock of merit. And why? Because,
O Subhûti, there does not exist in those noble-minded Bodhisattvas the idea of
self, there does not exist the idea of a being, the idea of a living being, the
idea of a person. Nor does there exist, O Subhûti, for these noble-minded
Bodhisattvas the idea of quality (dharma), nor of no-quality. Neither does there
exist, O Subhûti, any idea (samgñâ) or no-idea. And why? Because, O
Subhûti, if there existed for these noble-minded Bodhisattvas the idea of
quality, then they would believe in a self, they would believe in a being, they
would believe in a living being, they would believe in a person. And if there
existed for them the idea of no-quality, even then they would believe in a self,

[1. I am doubtful about the exact meaning of ekakittaprasâda.
Childers gives ekakitta, as an adjective, with the meaning of 'having the
same thought,' and kittaprasâda, as faith in Buddha. But ekakittaprasâda
may also be 'faith producted by one thought,' 'immediate faith,' and this too is
a recognised form of faith in Buddhism. See Sukhâvatî, pp. 71, 108.]

they would believe in a being, they would believe in a living being, they
would believe in a person. And why? Because, O Subhûti, neither quality nor
no-quality is to be accepted by a noble-minded Bodhisattva. Therefore this
hidden saying has been preached by the Tathâgata: "By those who know the
teaching of the Law, as like unto a raft, all qualities indeed must be
abandoned; much more no-qualities[1]"' (6)

VII.

And again Bhagavat spoke thus to the venerable Subhûti: 'What do you
think, O Subhûti, is there anything (dharma) that was known by the Tathâgata
under the name of the highest perfect knowledge, or anything that was taught by
the Tathâgata?'

After these words, the venerable Subhûti spoke thus to Bhagavat: 'As I, O
Bhagavat, understand the meaning of the preaching of the Bhagavat, there is
nothing that was known by the Tathâgata under the name of the highest perfect
knowledge, nor is there anything that is taught by the Tathâgata. And why?
Because that thing which was known or taught by the Tathâgata is
incomprehensible and inexpressible. It is neither a thing nor no-thing. And why?
Because the holy persons[2] are of imperfect power[3].' (7)

[1. The same line is quoted in the Abhidharmakosha-vyâkhyâ.

2. Âryapudgala need not be Bodhisattvas, but all who have entered on the path
leading to Nirvâna.

3. Harlez: 'Parceque les entit¨¦s sup¨¦rieures sont produites telles sans ¨ºtre
r¨¦elles et parfaites pour cela.' If samskrita can be used in
Buddhist literature in the sense of perfect, and prabhâvitâ as power, my
translation might pass, but even then the 'because' remains difficult.]

Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, if a son or daughter of a
good family filled this sphere of a million millions of worlds with the seven
gems or treasures, and gave it as a gift to the holy and enlightened Tathâgatas,
would that son or daughter of a good family on the strength of this produce a
large stock of merit?' Subhûti said: 'Yes, O Bhagavat, yes, O Sugata, that son
or daughter of a good family would on the strength of this produce a large stock
of merit. And why? Because, O Bhagavat, what was preached by the Tathâgata as
the stock of merit, that was preached by the Tathâgata as no-stock of merit.
Therefore the Tathâgata preaches: "A stock of merit, a stock of merit indeed!"'
Bhagavat said: 'And if, O Subhûti, the son or daughter of a good family should
fill this sphere of a million millions of worlds with the seven treasures and
should give it as a gift to the holy and enlightened Tathâgatas, and if another
after taking from this treatise of the Law one Gâthâ of four lines only should
fully teach others and explain it, he indeed would on the strength of this
produce a larger stock of merit immeasurable and innumerable. And why? Because,
O Subhûti, the highest perfect knowledge of the holy and enlightened Tathâgatas
is produced from it; the blessed Buddhas are produced from it. And why? Because,
O Subhûti, when the Tathâgata preached:

[1. See Childers, s.v. Lokadhâtu.

2. Or should it be, bhâshate*punyaskandhah punyaskandha
iti, i.e. he preaches no-stock of merit is the stock of merit? It would not be
applicable to later passages, but the style of the Sûtras varies.]

"The qualities of Buddha, the qualities of Buddha indeed!" they were preached
by him as no-qualities of Buddha. Therefore they are called the qualities of
Buddha.' (8)

IX.

Bhagavat said: 'Now, what do you think, O Subhûti, does a Srota-âpanna
think in this wise: The fruit of Srota-âpatti has been obtained by me?' Subhûti
said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a Srota-âpanna does not think in this wise: The
fruit of Srota-âpatti has been obtained by me. And why? Because, O Bhagavat, he
has not obtained any particular state (dharma). Therefore he is called a
Srota-âpanna. He has not obtained any form, nor sounds, nor smells, nor tastes,
nor things that can be touched. Therefore he is called a Srota-âpanna. If, O
Bhagavat, a Srota-âpanna were to think in this wise: The fruit of Srota-âpatti
has been obtained by me, he would believe in a self, he would believe in a
being, he would believe in a living being, he would believe in a person.'

Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, does a Sakridâgâmin
think in this wise: The fruit of a Sakridâgâmin has been obtained by me?'
Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a Sakridâgâmin

[1. This phrase is wanting in the Sanskrit MSS., but it is found in
the Chinese translation of Dharmagupta, of the Sui dynasty (A. D. 589-618).

2. Srota-âpanna, a man who has obtained the first grade of sanctification,
literally, who has entered the stream. The second grade is that of the Sakridâgâmin,
who returns once. The third grade is that of the Anâgâmin, who does not return
at all, but is born in the Brahman world from whence he becomes an Arhat and may
obtain Nirvâna.]

does not think in this wise: The fruit of a Sakridâgâmin has been
obtained by me. And why? Because he is not an individual being (dharma), who has
obtained the state of a Sakridâgâmin. Therefore he is called a Sakridâgâmin.'

Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, does an Anâgâmin think in
this wise: The fruit of an Anâgâmin has been obtained by me?' Subhûti said: 'Not
indeed, O Bhagavat, an Anâgâmin does not think in this wise: The fruit of an
Anâgâmin has been obtained by me. And why? Because he is not an individual
being, who has obtained the state of an Anâgâmin. Therefore he is called an
Anâgâmin.'

Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, does an Arhat think in this
wise: The fruit of an Arhat has been obtained by me?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed,
O Bhagavat, an Arhat does not think in this wise: The fruit of an Arhat has been
obtained by me. And why? Because he is not an individual being, who is called an
Arhat. Therefore he is called an Arhat. And if, O Bhagavat, an Arhat were to
think in this wise: The state of an Arhat has been obtained by me, he would
believe in a self, he would believe in a being, he would believe in a living
being, he would believe in a person.

'And why? I have been pointed out, O Bhagavat, by the holy and fully
enlightened Tathâgata, as the foremost of those who dwell in virtue[1].

[1. Aranâvihârin. Rana is strife, then sin, therefore
arana might be peace and virtue, only the a would be short. Probably aranavihârin
was formed with reference to âranya-vihârin, living in the forest,
retired from the world, and in peace, just as arhan, worthy, was changed into
arahan, the destroyer of sin. Beal translates, 'one who delights in the
mortification of an Aranyaka (forest devotee).' De Harlez: 'chey de ceux
qui ne sont plus attach¨¦s ¨¤ la jouissance.']

I, O Bhagavat, am an Arhat, freed from passion. And yet, O Bhagavat, I do not
think in this wise: I am an Arhat, I am freed from passion. If, O Bhagavat, I
should think in this wise, that the state of an Arhat has been obtained by me,
then the Tathâgata would not have truly prophesied of me, saying: "Subhûti, the
son of a good family, the foremost of those dwelling in virtue, does not dwell
anywhere, and therefore he is called a dweller in virtue, a dweller in virtue
indeed!"' (9)

X.

Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, is there anything (dharma)
which the Tathâgata has adopted from the Tathâgata Dîpankara[1], the holy and
fully enlightened?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat; there is not anything
which the Tathâgata has adopted from the Tathâgata Dîpankara, the holy and fully
enlightened.'

Bhagavat said: 'If, O Subhûti, a Bodhisattva should say: "I shall create
numbers of worlds," he would say what is untrue. And why? Because, O Subhûti,
when the Tathâgata preached: Numbers of worlds, numbers of worlds indeed! they
were preached by him as no-numbers. Therefore they are called numbers of worlds.

'Therefore, O Subhûti, a noble-minded Bodhisattva should in this wise
frame an independent

mind, which is to be framed as a mind not believing in anything, not
believing in form, not believing in sound, smell, taste, and anything that can
be touched. Now, for instance, O Subhûti, a man might have a body and a large
body, so that his size should be as large as the king of mountains, Sumeru. Do
you think then, O Subhûti, that his selfhood (he himself) would be large?'
Subhûti said: 'Yes, O Bhagavat, yes, O Sugata, his selfhood would be large. And
why? Because, O Bhagavat, when the Tathâgata preached: "Selfhood, selfhood
indeed!" it was preached by him as no-selfhood. Therefore it is called
selfhood.' (10)

XI.

Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, if there were as many Gangâ
rivers as there are grains of sand in the large river Gangâ, would the grains of
sand be many?' Subhûti said: 'Those Gangâ rivers would indeed be many, much more
the grains of sand in those Gangâ rivers.' Bhagavat said: 'I tell you, O Subhûti,
I announce to you, If a woman or man were to fill with the seven treasures as
many worlds as there would be grains of sand in those Gangâ rivers and present
them as a gift to the holy and fully enlightened Tathâgatas--What do you think,
O Subhûti, would that woman or man on the strength of this produce a large stock
of merit?' Subhûti said: 'Yes, O Bhagavat, yes, O Sugata, that woman or man
would on the strength of this produce a large stock of merit, immeasurable and
innumerable.' Bhagavat said: 'And if, O Subhûti, a woman or man having filled so
many worlds with the seven treasures should give them as a gift to the holy and
enlightened Tathâgatas,

and if another son or daughter of a good family, after taking from this
treatise of the Law one Gâthâ of four lines only, should fully teach others and
explain it, he, indeed, would on the strength of this produce a larger stock of
merit, immeasurable and innumerable.' (11)

XII.

'Then again, O Subhûti, that part of the world in which, after taking from
this treatise of the Law one Gâthâ of four lines only, it should be preached or
explained, would be like a Kaitya (holy shrine) for the whole world of
gods, men, and spirits; what should we say then of those who learn the whole of
this treatise of the Law to the end, who repeat it, understand it, and fully
explain it to others? They, O Subhûti, will be endowed with the highest
wonder[1]. And in that place, O Subhûti, there dwells the teacher[2], or one
after another holding the place of the wise preceptor[3].' (12)

XIII.

After these words, the venerable Subhûti spoke thus to Bhagavat: 'O
Bhagavat, how is this treatise of the Law called, and how can I learn it?' After
this, Bhagavat spoke thus to the venerable Subhûti: 'This treatise of the Law, O
Subhûti, is called the Pragñâ-pâramitâ (Transcendent wisdom), and you
should learn it by that name. And why? Because, O Subhûti, what was preached by
the Tathâgata as the Pragñâ-pâramitâ, that was preached by the

[1. With what excites the highest wonder.

2. Sastâ, often the name of Budha, Pâli sattha.

3. This may refer to a succession of teachers handing down the tradition one
to the other.]

'Then, what do you think, O Subhûti, is there anything (dharma) that was
preached by the Tathâgata?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagvat, there is not
anything that was preached by the Tathâgata.'

Bhagavat said. 'What do you think then, O Subhûti,--the dust of the earth
which is found in this sphere of a million millions of worlds, is that much?'
Subhûti said: 'Yes, O Bhagavat, yes, O Sugata, that dust of the earth would be
much. And why? Because, O Bhagavat, what was preached by the Tathâgata as the
dust of the earth, that was preached by the Tathâgata as no-dust. Therefore it
is called the dust of the earth. And what was preached by the Tathâgata as the
sphere of worlds, that was preached by the Tathâgata as no-sphere. Therefore it
is called the sphere of worlds.'

Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, is a holy and fully
enlightened Tathâgata to be seen (known) by the thirty-two signs of a hero?'
Subhûti said: 'No indeed, O Bhagavat; a holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata is
not to be seen (known) by the thirty-two signs of a hero. And why? Because what
was preached by the Tathâgata as the thirty-two signs of a hero, that was
preached by the Tathâgata as no-signs. Therefore they are called the thirty-two
signs of a hero.'

Bhagavat said: 'If, O Subhûti, a woman or man should day by day sacrifice
his life (selfhood[1]) as

[1. Âtmabhâva seems to refer here to the living body, not to the
spiritual Âtman, which, according to Buddha, can be got rid of by knowledge
only. Buddha himself sacrificed his life again and again, and a willingness to
die would probably be accepted for the deed.]

many times as there are grains of sand in the river Gangâ, and if he should
thus sacrifice his life for as many kalpas as there are grains of sand in the
river Gangâ, and if another man, after taking from this treatise of the Law one
Gâthâ of four lines only, should fully teach others and explain it, he indeed
would on the strength of this produce a larger stock of merit, immeasurable and
innumerable.' (13)

XIV.

At that time, the venerable Subhûti was moved by the power of the Law,
shed tears, and having wiped his tears, he thus spoke to Bhagavat: 'It is
wonderful, O Bhagavat, it is exceedingly wonderful, O Sugata, how fully this
teaching of the Law has been preached by the Tathâgata for the benefit of those
beings who entered on the foremost path (the path that leads to Nirvâna),
and who entered on the best path, from whence, O Bhagavat, knowledge has been
produced in me. Never indeed, O Bhagavat, has such a teaching of the Law been
heard by me before. Those Bodhisattvas, O Bhagavat, will be endowed with the
highest wonder[1], who when this Sûtra is being preached hear it and will frame
to themselves a true idea. And why? Because what is a true idea is not a true
idea. Therefore the Tathâgata preaches: "A true idea, a true idea indeed!"

'It is no wonder to me, O Bhagavat, that I accept and believe this
treatise of the Law, which has been preached. And those beings also, O Bhagavat,

who will exist in the future, in the last time, in the last moment, in the
last 500 years, during the time of the decay of the good Law, who will learn
this treatise of the Law, O Bhagavat, remember it, recite it, understand it, and
fully explain it to others, they will indeed be endowed with the highest wonder.

'But, O Bhagavat, there will not arise in them any idea of a self, any
idea of a being, of a living being, or a person, nor does there exist for them
any idea or no-idea. And why? Because, O Bhagavat, the idea of a self is
no-idea, and the idea of a being, or a living being, or a person is no-idea. And
why? Because the blessed Buddhas are freed from all ideas.'

After these words, Bhagavat thus spoke to the venerable Subhûti: 'So it
is, O Subhûti, so it is. Those beings, O Subhûti, who when this Sûtra was being
recited here will not be disturbed or frightened or become alarmed, will be
endowed with the highest wonder. And why? Because, O Subhûti, this was preached
by the Tathâgata, as the Paramapâramitâ, which is no-Pâramitâ. And, O Subhûti,
what the Tathâgata preaches as the Paramapâramitâ, that was preached also by
immeasurable blessed Buddhas. Therefore it is called the Paramapâramitâ.

'And, O Subhûti, the Pâramitâ or the highest perfection of endurance (kshânti)
belonging to a Tathâgata, that also is no-Pâramitâ. And why? Because, O Subhûti,
at the time when the king of Kalinga[1] cut my flesh from every limb, I had no
idea of a self, of a being, of a living being, or of

[1. The Chinese text points to Kalirâgâ. On this Kalirâgâ
or Kalinripa see Lalita-vistara, p. 191.]

a person; I had neither an idea nor no-idea. And why? Because, O Subhûti, if
I at that time had had an idea of a self, I should also have had an idea of
malevolence. If I had had an idea of a being, or of a living being, or of a
person, I should also have had an idea of malevolence. And why? Because, O
Subhûti, I remember the past 500 births, when I was the Rishi
Kshântivâdin (preacher of endurance). At that time also, I had no idea of a
self, of a being, of a living being, of a person. Therefore then, O Subhûti, a
noble-minded Bodhisattva, after putting aside all ideas, should raise his mind
to the highest perfect knowledge. He should frame his mind so as not to believe
(depend) in form, sound, smell, taste, or anything that can be touched, in
something (dharma), in nothing or anything. And why? Because what is believed is
not believed (not to be depended on). Therefore the Tathâgata preaches: "A gift
should not be given by a Bodhisattva[1] who believes in anything, it should not
be given by one who believes in form, sound, smell, taste, or anything that can
be touched."

'And again, O Subhûti, a Bodhisattva should in such wise give his gift for
the benefit of all beings. And why? Because, O Subhûti, the idea of a being is
no-idea. And those who are thus spoken of by the Tathâgata as all beings are
indeed no-beings. And why? Because, O Subhûti, a Tathâgata says what is real,
says what is true, says the things as they are; a Tathâgata does not speak
untruth.

perceived, taught, and meditated on by a Tathâgata, in it there is neither
truth nor falsehood. And as a man who has entered the darkness would not see
anything, thus a Bodhisattva is to be considered who is immersed in objects, and
who being immersed in objects gives a gift. But as a man who has eyes would,
when the night becomes light, and the sun has risen, see many things, thus a
Bodhisattva is to be considered who is not immersed in objects, and who not
being immersed in objects gives a gift.

'And again, O Subhûti, if any sons or daughters of good families will
learn this treatise of the Law, will remember, recite, and understand it, and
fully explain it to others, they, O Subhûti, are known by the Tathâgata through
his Buddha-knowledge, they are seen, O Subhûti, by the Tathâgata through his
Buddha-eye. All these beings, O Subhûti, will produce and hold fast an
immeasurable and innumerable stock of merit.' (14)

XV.

'And if, O Subhûti, a woman or man sacrificed in the morning as many lives
as there are grains of sand in the river Gangâ and did the same at noon and the
same in the evening, and if in this way they sacrificed their lives for a
hundred thousands of niyutas of kotîs of ages, and if another, after
hearing this treatise of the Law, should not oppose it, then the latter would on
the strength of this produce a larger stock of merit, immeasurable and
innumerable. What should we say then of him who after having written it, learns
it, remembers it, understands it, and fully explains it to others?

incomprehensible and incomparable. And this treatise of the Law has been
preached by the Tathâgata for the benefit of those beings who entered on the
foremost path (the path that leads to Nirvâna), and who entered on the
best path. And those who will learn this treatise of the Law, who will remember
it, recite it, understand it, and fully explain it to others, they are known, O
Subhûti, by the Tathâgata through his Buddha-knowledge, they are seen, O Subhûti,
by the Tathâgata through his Buddha-eye. All these beings, O Subhûti, will be
endowed with an immeasurable stock of merit, they will be endowed with an
incomprehensible, incomparable, immeasurable and unmeasured stock of merit. All
these beings, O Subhûti, will equally remember the Bodhi (the highest
Buddha-knowledge), will recite it, and understand it. And why? Because it is not
possible, O Subhûti, that this treatise of the Law should be heard by beings of
little faith, by those who believe in self, in beings, in living beings, and in
persons. It is impossible that this treatise of the Law should be heard by
beings who have not acquired the knowledge of Bodhisattvas, or that it should be
learned, remembered, recited, and understood by them. The thing is impossible.

'And again, O Subhûti, that part of the world in which this Sûtra will be
propounded, will have to be honoured by the whole world of gods, men, and evil
spirits, will have to be worshipped, and will become like a Kaitya (a
holy sepulchre).' (15)

XVI.

And, O Subhûti, sons or daughters of a good family who will learn these
very Sûtras, who will

remember them. recite them, understand them, thoroughly take them to heart,
and fully explain them to others, they will be overcome[1], they will be greatly
overcome. And why? Because, O Subhûti, whatever evil deeds these beings have
done in a former birth, deeds that must lead to suffering, those deeds these
beings, owing to their being overcome, after they have seen the Law, will
destroy, and they will obtain the knowledge of Buddha.

'I remember, O Subhûti, in the past, before innumerable and more than
innumerable kalpas, there were eighty-four hundred thousands of niyutas of kotîs
of Buddhas following after the venerable and fully enlightened Tathâgata
Dîpankara, who were pleased by me, and after being pleased were not displeased.
And if, O Subhûti, these blessed Buddhas were pleased by me, and after being
pleased were not displeased, and if on the other hand people at the last time,
at the last moment, in the last 500 years, during the time of the decay of the
good Law, will learn these very Sûtras, remember them, recite them, understand
them, and fully explain them to others, then, O Subhûti, in comparison with
their stock of merit that former stock of merit will not come to one hundredth
part, nay, not to one thousandth part, not to a hundred thousandth part, not to
a ten millionth part, not to a hundred millionth part, not to a hundred thousand
ten millionth part, not to a hundred thousands of niyutas ten millionth part. It
will not bear number, nor fraction, nor counting, nor comparison, nor approach,
nor analogy.

'And if, O Subhûti, I were to tell you the stock of

[1. Paribhûta is explained by despised, but the sense, or even the
non-sense, is difficult to understand.]

merit of those sons or daughters of good families, and how large a stock of
merit those sons or daughters of good families will produce, and hold fast at
that time, people would become distracted and their thoughts would become
bewildered. And again, O Subhûti, as this treatise of the Law preached by the
Tathâgata is incomprehensible and incomparable, its rewards also must be
expected (to be) incomprehensible.' (16)

XVII.

At that time the venerable Subhûti thus spoke to the Bhagavat: 'How should
a person, after having entered on the path of the Bodhisattvas, behave, how
should he advance, and how should he restrain his thoughts?' Bhagavat said: 'He
who has entered on the path of the Bodhisativas should thus frame his thought:
All beings must be delivered by me in the perfect world of Nirvâna; and
yet after I have thus delivered these beings, no being has been delivered. And
why? Because, O Subhûti, if a Bodhisattva had any idea of beings, he could not
be called a Bodhisattva, and so on[1] from the idea of a living being to the
idea of a person; if he had any such idea, he could not be called a Bodhisattva.
And why? Because, O Subhûti, there is no such thing (dharma) as one who has
entered on the path of the Bodhisattvas.

'What do you think, O Subhûti, is there anything which the Tathâgata has
adopted from the Tathâgata Dîpankara with regard to the highest perfect
knowledge? 'After this, the venerable Subhûti

spoke thus to the Bhagavat: 'As far as I, O Bhagavat, understand the meaning
of the preaching of the Bhagavat, there is nothing which has been adopted by the
Tathâgata from the holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata Dîpankara with regard to
the highest perfect knowledge.' After this, Bhagavat thus spoke to the venerable
Subhûti: 'So it is, Subhûti, so it is. There is not, O Subhûti, anything which
has been adopted by the Tathâgata from the holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata
Dîpankara with regard to the highest perfect knowledge. And if, O Subhûti,
anything had been adopted by the Tathâgata, the Tathâgata Dîpankara would not
have prophesied of me, saying[1]: "Thou, O boy, wilt be in the future the holy
and fully enlightened Tathâgata called Sâkyamuni." Because then, O
Subhûti, there is nothing that has been adopted by the holy and fully
enlightened Tathâgata with regard to the highest perfect knowledge, therefore I
was prophesied by the Tathâgata Dîpankara, saying: "Thou, boy, wilt be in the
future the holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata called Sâkyamuni."

'And why, O Subhûti, the name of Tathâgata? It expresses true suchness.
And why Tathâgata, O Subhûti? It expresses that he had no origin. And why
Tathâgata, O Subhûti? It expresses the destruction of all qualities. And why
Tathâgata, O Subhûti? It expresses one who had no origin whatever. And why this?
Because, O Subhûti, no-origin is the highest goal.

'And whosoever, O Subhûti, should say that, by the holy and fully
enlightened Tathâgata, the highest

[1. This prophecy is supposed to have been addressed by Dîpankara to
Sâkyamuni, before he had become a Buddha.]

perfect knowledge has been known, he would speak an untruth, and would
slander me, O Subhûti, with some untruth that he has learned. And why? Because
there is no such thing, O Subhûti, as has been known by the Tathâgata with
regard to the highest perfect knowledge. And in that, O Subhûti, which has been
known and taught by the Tathâgata, there is neither truth nor falsehood.
Thetefore the Tathâgata preaches: "All things are Buddha-things." And why?
Because what was preached by the Tathâgata, O Subhûti, as all things, that was
preached as no-things; and therefore all things are called Buddha-things.

'Now, O Subhûti, a man might have a body and a large body.' The venerable
Subhûti said: That man who was spoken of by the Tathâgata as a man with a body,
with a large body, he, O Bhagavat, was spoken of by the Tathâgata as without a
body, and therefore he is called a man with a body and with a large body.'

Bhagavat said: 'So it is, O Subhûti; and if a Bodhisattva were to say: "I
shall deliver all beings," he ought not to be called a Bodhisattva. And why? Is
there anything, O Subhûti, that is called a Bodhisattva?' Subhûti said: 'Not
indeed, Bhagavat, there is nothing which is called a Bodhisattva.' Bhagavat
said: 'Those who were spoken of as beings, beings indeed, O Subhûti, they were
spoken of as no-beings by the Tathâgata, and therefore they are called beings.
Therefore the Tathâgata says: "All beings are without self all beings are
without life, without manhood[1], without a personality."

'If, O Subhûti, a Bodhisattva were to say: "I shall create numbers of
worlds," he would say what is untrue. And why? Because, what were spoken of as
numbers of worlds, numbers of worlds indeed, O Subhûti, these were spoken of as
no-numbers by the Tathâgata, and therefore they are called numbers of worlds.

'A Bodhisattva, O Subhûti, who believes that all things are without self,
that all things are without self, he has faith, he is called a noble-minded
Bodhisattva by the holy and fully enlightened Tathâgata.' (17)

XVIII.

Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, has the Tathâgata the bodily
eye?' Subhûti said: 'So it is, O Bhagavat, the Tathâgata has the bodily eye.'

Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, has the Tathâgata the
heavenly eye?' Subhûti said: 'So it is, O Bhagavat, the Tathâgata has the
heavenly eye.'

Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, has the Tathâgata the eye of
knowledge?' Subhûti said: 'So it is, O Bhagavat, the Tathâgata has the eye of
knowledge.'

Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, has the Tathâgata the eye of
the Law?' Subhûti said: 'So it is, O Bhagavat, the Tathâgata has the eye of the
Law.'

Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, has the Tathâgata the eye of
Buddha?' Subhûti said: 'So it is, O Bhagavat, the Tathâgata has the eye of
Buddha.'

Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, as many grains of sand as
there are in the great river Gangâ--were they preached by the Tathâgata

as grains of sand?' Subhûti said: 'So it is, O Bhagavat, so it is, O Sugata,
they were preached as grains of sand by the Tathâgata.' Bhagavat said: 'What do
you think, O Subhûti, if there were as many Gangâ rivers as there are grains of
sand in the great river Gangâ; and, if there were as many worlds as there are
grains of sand in these, would these worlds be many?' Subhûti said: 'So it is, O
Bhagavat, so it is, O Sugata, these worlds would be many.' Bhagavat said: 'As
many beings as there are in all those worlds, I know the manifold trains of
thought of them all. And why? Because what was preached as the train of
thoughts, the train of thoughts indeed, O Subhûti, that was preached by the
Tathâgata as no-train of thoughts, and therefore it is called the train of
thoughts. And why? Because, O Subhûti, a past thought is not perceived, a future
thought is not perceived, and the present thought is not perceived.' (18)

XIX.

'What do you think, O Subhûti, if a son or a daughter of a good family
should fill this sphere of a million millions of worlds with the seven
treasures, and give it as a gift to holy and fully enlightened Buddhas, would
that son or daughter of a good family produce on the strength of this a large
stock of merit?' Subhûti said: 'Yes, a large one.' Bhagavat said: 'So it is,
Subhûti, so it is; that son or daughter of a good family would produce on the
strength of this a large stock of merit, immeasurable and innumerable. And why?
Because what was preached as a stock of merit, a stock of merit indeed, O
Subhûti, that was preached as no-stock

of merit by the Tathâgata, and therefore it is called a stock of merit. If, O
Subhûti, there existed a stock of merit, the Tathâgata would not have preached:
"A stock of merit, a stock of merit indeed!"'(19)

XX.

'What do you think then, O Subhûti, is a Tathâgata to be seen (known) by
the shape of his visible body?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a
Tathâgata is not to be seen (known) by the shape of his visible body. And why?
Because, what was preached, O Bhagavat, as the shape of the visible body, the
shape of the visible body indeed, that was preached by the Tathâgata as no-shape
of the visible body, and therefore it is called the shape of the visible body.'

Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, should a Tathâgata be seen
(known) by the possession of signs?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, a
Tathâgata is not to be seen (known) by the possession of signs. And why?
Because, what was preached by the Tathâgata as the possession of signs, that was
preached as no-possession of signs by the Tathâgata, and therefore it is called
the possession of signs.' (20)

XXI.

Bhagavat said: 'What do you think, O Subhûti, does the Tathâgata think in
this wise: The Law has been taught by me?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat,
does the Tathâgata think in this wise: The Law has been taught by me.' Bhagavat
said: 'If a man should say that the Law has been taught by the Tathâgata, he
would say what is not true; he

would slander me with untruth which he has learned. And why? Because, O
Subhûti, it is said the teaching of the Law, the teaching of the Law indeed. O
Subhûti, there is nothing that can be perceived by the name of the teaching of
the Law.'

After this, the venerable Subhûti spoke thus to the Bhagavat: 'Forsooth, O
Bhagavat, will there be any beings in the future, in the last time, in the last
moment, in the last 500 years, during the time of the decay of the good Law,
who, when they have heard these very Laws, will believe?' Bhagavat said: 'These,
O Subhûti, are neither beings nor no-beings. And why? Because, O Subhûti, those
who were preached as beings, beings indeed, they were preached as no-beings by
the Tathâgata, and therefore they are called beings.' (2 1)

XXII.

'What do you think then, O Subhûti, is there anything which has been known
by the Tathâgata in the form of the highest perfect knowledge?' The venerable
Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat, there is nothing, O Bhagavat, that has
been known by the Tathâgata in the form of the highest perfect knowledge.'
Bhagavat said: 'So it is, Subhûti, so it is. Even the smallest thing is not
known or perceived there, therefore it is called the highest perfect knowledge.'
(22)

XXIII.

'Also, Subhûti, all is the same there, there is no difference there, and
therefore it is called the highest perfect knowledge. Free from self, free from
being, free from life, free from personality, that

highest perfect knowledge is always the same, and thus known with all good
things. And why? Because, what were preached as good things, good things indeed,
O Subhûti, they were preached as no-things by the Tathâgata, and therefore they
are called good things.' (23)

XXIV.

'And if, O Subhûti, a woman or man, putting together as many heaps of the
seven treasures as there are Sumerus, kings of mountains, in the sphere of a
million millions of worlds, should give them as a gift to holy and fully
enlightened Tathâgatas; and, if a son or a daughter of a good family, after
taking from this treatise of the Law, this Pragñâpâramitâ, one Gâthâ of
four lines only, should teach it to others, then, O Subhûti, compared with his
stock of merit, the former stock of merit would not come to the one hundredth
part,' &c.[1], till 'it will not bear an approach.' (24)

XXV.

'What do you think then, O Subhûti, does a Tathâgatas think in this wise:
Beings have been delivered by me? You should not think so, O Subhûti. And why?
Because there is no being, O Subhûti, that has been delivered by the Tathâgata.
And, if there were a being, O Subhûti, that has been delivered by the Tathâgatas,
then the Tathâgata would believe in self, believe in a being, believe in a
living being, and believe in a person. And what is called a belief in self, O
Subhûti, that is preached

as no-belief by the Tathâgata. And this is learned by children and ignorant
persons; and they who were preached as children and ignorant persons, O Subhûti,
were preached as no-persons by the Tathâgata, and therefore they are called
children and ignorant persons.' (25)

XXVI.

'What do you think then, O Subhûti, is the Tathâgata to be seen (known) by
the possession of signs?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, O Bhagavat. So far as I
know the meaning of the preaching of the Bhagavat, the Tathâgata is not to be
seen (known) by the possession of signs.' Bhagavat said: 'Good, good, Subhûti,
so it is, Subhûti; so it is, as you say; a Tathâgata is not to be seen (known)
by the possession of signs. And why? Because, O Subhûti, if the Tathâgata were
to be seen (known) by the possession of signs, a wheel-turning king also would
be a Tathâgata[1]; therefore a Tathâgata is not to be seen (known) by the
possession of signs.' The venerable Subhûti spoke thus to the Bhagavat: 'As I
understand the meaning of the preaching of the Bhagavat, a Tathâgata is not to
be seen (known) by the possession of signs.' Then the Bhagavat at that moment
preached these two Gâthâs:

They who saw me by form, and they who heard me by sound,
They engaged in false endeavours, will not see me.

[1. This probably refers to the auspicious signs discovered in Sâkyamuni
at his birth, which left it open whether he should become a king or a Buddha.]

A Buddha is to be seen (known) from the Law; for the Lords (Buddhas) have
the Law-body;
And the nature of the Law cannot be understood, nor can it be made to be
understood. (26)

XXVII.

'What do you think then, O Subhûti, has the highest perfect knowledge been
known by the Tathâgata through the possession of signs? You should not think so,
O Subhûti. And why? Because, O Subhûti, the highest perfect knowledge would not
be known by the Tathâgata through the possession of signs. Nor should anybody, O
Subhûti, say to you that the destruction or annihilation of any thing is
proclaimed by those who have entered on the path of the Bodhisattvas.' (27)

XXVIII.

'And if, O Subhûti, a son or a daughter of a good family were to fill
worlds equal to the number of grains of sand of the river Gangâ with the seven
treasures, and give them as a gift to holy and fully enlightened Tathâgatas; and
if a Bodhisattva acquired endurance in selfless and uncreated things, then the
latter will on the strength of this produce a larger stock of merit,
immeasurable and innumerable.

'But, O Subhûti, a stock of merit should not be appropriated by a
noble-minded Bodhisattva.' The venerable Subhûti said: 'Should a stock of merit,
O Bhagavat, not be appropriated by a Bodhisattva?' Bhagavat said: 'It should be
appropriated, O Subhûti; it should not be appropriated; and therefore it is
said: It should be appropriated.' (28)

'And again, O Subhûti, if anybody were to say that the Tathâgata goes, or
comes, or stands, or sits, or lies down, he, O Subhûti, does not understand the
meaning of my preaching. And why? Because the word Tathâgata means one who does
not go to anywhere, and does not come from anywhere; and therefore he is called
the Tathâgata (truly come), holy and fully enlightened.' (29)

XXX.

'And again, O Subhûti, if a son or a daughter of a good family were to
take as many worlds as there are grains of earth-dust in this sphere of a
million millions of worlds, and reduce them to such fine dust as can be made
with immeasurable strength, like what is called a mass of the smallest atoms, do
you think, O Subhûti, would that be a mass of many atoms?' Subhûti said: 'Yes,
Bhagavat, yes, Sugata, that would be a mass of many atoms. And why? Because, O
Bhagavat, if it were a mass of many atoms, Bhagavat would not call it a mass of
many atoms. And why? Because, what was preached as a mass of many atoms by the
Tathâgata, that was preached as no-mass of atoms by the Tathâgata; and therefore
it is called a mass of many atoms. And what was preached by the Tathâgata as the
sphere of a million millions of worlds, that was preached by the Tathâgata as
no-sphere of worlds; and therefore it is called the sphere of a million millions
of worlds. And why? Because, O Bhagavat, if there were a sphere of worlds, there
would exist a belief in matter; and what was preached as a belief in matter by
the Tathâgata, that was

preached as no-belief by the Tathâgata; and therefore it is called a belief
in matter.' Bhagavat said: 'And a belief in matter itself, O Subhûti, is
unmentionable and inexpressible; it is neither a thing nor no-thing, and this is
known by children and ignorant persons.' (30)

XXXI.

'And why? Because, O Subhûti, if a man were to say that belief in self,
belief in a being, belief in life, belief in personality had been preached by
the Tathâgata, would he be speaking truly?' Subhûti said: 'Not indeed, Bhagavat,
not indeed, Sugata; he would not be speaking truly. And why? Because, O Bhagavat,
what was preached by the Tathâgata as a belief in self, that was preached by the
Tathâgata as no-belief; therefore it is called belief in self.'

Bhagavat said: 'Thus then, O Subhûti, are all things to be perceived, to
be looked upon, and to be believed by one who has entered on the path of the
Bodhisattvas. And in this wise are they to be perceived, to be looked upon, and
to be believed, that a man should believe neither in the idea of a thing nor in
the idea of a no-thing. And why? Because, by saying: The idea of a thing, the
idea of a thing indeed, it has been preached by the Tathâgata as no-idea of a
thing.' (31)

XXXII.

'And, O Subhûti, if a noble-minded Bodhisattva were to fill immeasurable
and innumerable spheres of worlds with the seven treasures, and give them as a
gift to holy and fully enlightened Tathâgatas;

and if a son or a daughter of a good family, after taking from this treatise
of the Law, this Pragñâpâramitâ, one Gâthâ of four lines only, should
learn it, repeat it, understand it, and fully explain it to others, then the
latter would on the strength of this produce a larger stock of merit,
immeasurable and innumerable. And how should he explain it? As in the sky:

Stars, darkness, a lamp, a phantom, dew, a bubble.
A dream, a flash of lightning, and a cloud--thus we should look upon the world
(all that was made).

Thus he should explain; therefore it is said: He should explain.'

Thus spoke the Bhagavat enraptured. The elder Subhûti, and the friars,
nuns, the faithful laymen and women, and the Bodhisattvas also, and the whole
world of gods, men, evil spirits and fairies, praised the preaching of the
Bhagavat. (32)